' Aziz-ur-Rehman, petitioner before this Court is a defendant, in a suit for recovery of Rs,2,34,539 with mark up and liquidated damages filed by respondent No, 4 against him, which was earlier pending before respondent No,2. Subsequently the suit has been transferred to the Court of Banking Tribunal (respondent No,3), in pursuance of Notification No,F.34(1)/95-All, issued by the Federal Government of Pakistan dated 25-4-1995. The said Notification is reproduced as under: ' No F 34 (1) 95-All Government of Pakistan Ministry of Law, ' Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Law and Justice ' Division) Islamabad the 25th April, 1995.
' From Mr. Muhammad Naeem Malik, Section Officer.
' To ' Sardar Bahram Khan, ' Banking Tribunal (Commercial-I).
' Old State Bank Building, The Mall, Lahore.
' Sub.
' DISTRIBUTION OF WORK.
' Sir ' With reference to your letter No BTL-C-1/95, dated 19-4-1995, on the above subject, I am directed to say that Mr. Ashiq Hussain Khan, Presiding Officer, Banking Tribunal-I, Lahore will distribute the work being senior most.
2. This issues with the approval of Secretary, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.
Your obedient servant.
(Muhammad Naeem Malik), Section Officer.
' Copy to:
(1) Mr. Ashiq Hussain, Presiding Officer, Banking Tribunal-I, Old State Bank Building, The Mall, Lahore.
(2) Mr. Mumtaz Ali, Banking Tribunal. (Commercial-II), Old State Bank Building, Lahore.
(3) Mr. Zafar Ali Thaim, Banking Tribunal (Commercial-III), Old State Bank Building, Lahore.
(4) Mr. Aish Bahadur Khan, Banking Tribunal, (Agricultural-I), Old State Bank Building, Lahore.
(5) Mr. Muhammad Aslam Nagi, Banking Tribnal (Agriculural-II), Old State Bank Building, Lahore.
(Sd.)
(Muhammad Naeem Malik), Section Officer."
2. File of the case out of which this petition has arisen, has been forwarded by respondent No,2 to respondent No,3 by passing of the following order: "2-7-1995. Present: Counsel for the parties. The suit is transferred to Banking Tribunal (Agricultural- I), Lahore for disposal in accordance with Law.
' Learned counsel for the parties to appear before the said Tribunal on 3-7-1995 for further proceedings."
' The petitioner applied before the transferee Tribunal respondent No,3 challenging the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal on the ground that it is only the Federal Government who can transfer the suit and as the suit in question has been transferred by the Banking Tribunal respondent No,2 before whom the same was pending, the transferee Court has no jurisdiction to proceed therewith. This application has been dismissed by the said learned Court vide order, dated 27-9-1995 on the grounds that the case has been transferred in pursuance of the Notification/letter dated 25-4- 1995, that the defendant is chronic defaulter throughout and wants to gain time by raising such frivolous and technical objections just to prolong the litigation and that no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/applicant if the case is heard by the transferee Tribunal.
3. Through this Constitutional petition order of the transfer of suit from the Court of respondent No, 2 to the Court of respondent No, 3 has been challenged as being illegal and without a lawful authority.
4. Mr. Muhammad Shahid Piracha, Advocate, has been heard in support of this petition, whereas Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of section 4, subsection (2) of the Banking Tribunals, Ordinance, 1984, Article 90 and Article 99 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which are reproduced as under:- "4. Establishment of Banking Tribunal.-- (1) The Federal Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish as many Banking Tribunals as it considers necessary, and, where it establishes more than One Banking Tribunal, it shall specify in the notification the territorial limits within which each of the Tribunals shall exercise jurisdiction under this Ordinance.
(2) Where more than one Banking Tribunals have been established in the same or different territorial limits, the Federal Government may, if considers it expedient to do so in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties or of witnesses, transfer any case from one Banking Tribunal to another.
(90).--(1) The executive authority of the Federation shall vest in the President and shall be exercised by him, either directly or through officers subordinate to him, in accordance with the Constitution.
(2) Nothing contained in clause (1) shall--
(a) be deemed to transfer to the .President any functions conferred by any existing Law on the Government of any Province or other authority; or
(b) prevent the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) from conferring by law functions on authorities other than the President.
99.--(1) 'All executive actions of the Federal Government shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President.
(2) The President shall by rules specify the manner in which orders and other instruments made and executed in his name shall be authenticated and the validity of any order or instrument so authenticated shall not be questioned in any Court on the ground that it was not made or executed by the President.
(3) The President shall also make rules for the allocation and transaction of the business of the Federal Government." and has contended that the suit could have been transferred only by the Federal Government and not by respondent No,2 and that too under the conditions as mentioned in section 4, subsection (2) which are not satisfied in this case nor the transfer has been ordered after judicious application of mind keeping in view the aforementioned conditions, hence proceedings before respondent No,3 are patently coram non judice. It is further contended that under the provisions of Article 99(3) it is the President of Pakistan who has to frame business rules which having not been framed by him there is no functional Federal Government and as such Notification/letter issued by the Federal Government is nullity in the eyes of law, hence the impugned order of transfer by distribution of the file of the suit by respondent No,2 to respondent No,3, is illegal and without jurisdiction.
6. Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, learned Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan on the other hand has contended that the suit has been transferred in pursuance of a notification No,F.34(1)/95-All, dated 25-4-1995, issued by the Federal Government in terms of the provisions of section 4, subsection (2) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, and respondent No,2 has just implemented the direction issued .By the Federal Government and has not passed his own independent order, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the transfer order has in fact been passed by respondent No,2 of his own is misconceived; that the Rules of Business have already been framed and the President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister as such the Federal Government is properly functioning, therefore, the notification issued by the said Government is perfectly lawful and valid, hence no exception could be taken thereto; that the petitioner has no vested right to claim trial of the suit in a particular forum and that no pre-judice shall be caused to him if the suit is tried by the respondent No,3 therefore no case has been made out for exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. He has pointed out that similar W.Ps. Nos.13983 and 13984 of 1995 have already been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein similar questions have been raised. He has also placed reliance on case of Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187 and Nabi Ahmed and another v. Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore. And 4 others PLD 1969 SC 599.
7. I have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and have perused the record. As per provisions of section 4, subsection (2) of the Ordinance, the Federal Government has the power to transfer a case from one Tribunal to another. Notification dated 25-4-1995 issued by the Federal Government meets the requirement of section 4, subsection (2), whereby respondent No, 2 has been asked to distribute the work so that some cases should be tried by respondent No,3, which is a Tribunal of equal jurisdiction. It is in pursuance of this Notification that respondent No,2 has transferred the suit from his file to the file of respondent No,3, therefore, it cannot be said that it is respondent No, 2 who has ordered transfer of the case from his Court and not the Federal Government. Argument as such being misconceived is repelled.
8. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the President has not made any Business Rules, therefore, there is no Federal Government the same is misconceived and is based upon lack of information, as the Business Rules have been framed and the Federal Government is very much functioning, therefore, the said argument is repelled.
9. As regards argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only under particular conditions the cases could have been transferred by the Federal Government, suffice it to say that convenience is one of the grounds on the basis whereof a transfer can be made and as lot many cases were pending before the one Tribunal distribution of the work shall definitely cause convenience to the litigant public as well by providing of speedy justice, therefore, it cannot be said that the Federal Government has exercised jurisdiction in illegal manner. The decisions rendered in W.Ps. Nos.13983 and 13984 of 1995 fully support the above-taken view on this score as well. It is well established a legal proposition that a decision of a lis by a particular forum is not prerogative of a litigant if there are various forums of equal jurisdiction, the competent authority has the power to transfer/distribute the work from one forum to another and it will neither result in causing of prejudice to the litigant nor could it be said that any vested right of the litigant has been adversely affected. Refer cases of Adnan Afzal and Nabi Ahmad (supra).
10. Resultantly, I see no force in this petition, hence the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.